Sounds like the people of "The New Divided States of America" needs a new government quickly otherwise states will loose their rights and laws under federal.

Originally posted by sylent6
Sounds like the people of "The New Divided States of America" needs a new government quickly otherwise states will loose their rights and laws under federal.

I am beginning to agree with you.
It is a sad end to a great nation.

I'm not saying I agree with abolishing sheriffs, but let's face it, sheriffs are elected officials who are not required to have any law enforcement background, nor knowledge of the law. Often times, this can be a recipe for disaster when ignorance of the laws and the power to arrest are bundled together in an individual who did nothing more than win popularity contest.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I'm not saying I agree with abolishing sheriffs, but let's face it, sheriffs are elected officials who are not required to have any law enforcement background, nor knowledge of the law. Often times, this can be a recipe for disaster when ignorance of the laws and the power to arrest are bundled together in an individual who did nothing more than win popularity contest.

edit on 25-1-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

You mean like the POTUS not having to meet the requirements for a security clearance to have access to national security information, or zero military training to be commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world.

This is a problem government wide.

A good many of our elected representatives would not qualify for the security clearances required for their positions if they were put to the same standards of conduct as normal government employees. The POTUS for sure would not - with unexplained foreign travel, associations with known terrorists (Whether Underground Bill Ayers), questionable background etc.

When a Sheriff wins an election they are sent to basic law enforcement training - at least here they are. Besides few if any are elected with no background in law enforcement at all. They also have access to advice and counsel from the Judges, Prosecutors etc, who all have law degrees.

Just a guess but maybe it has something to do with Delaware's state constitution or law? Why are the other two sheriffs not fighting it? That leads me to believe there is some legal basis....

And lastly, why do people put so much stock in the Examiner? So much of what they post is rumor or hyperbole and anyone can post pretty much any opinion piece they want and call it "news".

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I'm not saying I agree with abolishing sheriffs, but let's face it, sheriffs are elected officials who are not required to have any law enforcement background, nor knowledge of the law. Often times, this can be a recipe for disaster when ignorance of the laws and the power to arrest are bundled together in an individual who did nothing more than win popularity contest.

edit on 25-1-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

You mean like the POTUS not having to meet the requirements for a security clearance to have access to national security information, or zero military training to be commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world.

This is a problem government wide.

A good many of our elected representatives would not qualify for the security clearances required for their positions if they were put to the same standards of conduct as normal government employees. The POTUS for sure would not - with unexplained foreign travel, associations with known terrorists (Whether Underground Bill Ayers), questionable background etc.

When a Sheriff wins an election they are sent to basic law enforcement training - at least here they are. Besides few if any are elected with no background in law enforcement at all. They also have access to advice and counsel from the Judges, Prosecutors etc, who all have law degrees.

The potus delegates and then people whom know what to do take over.

Hell, what timing.

Sheriffs come out and tell Obama and his cartel where to stick their anti-constitutional rhetoric, and a few days later we hear this.

Well, since the government think it's fine to start stripping elected sheriffs of their powers, why should it be any different for the government elected officials.

Originally posted by Merinda
The potus delegates and then people whom know what to do take over.

One cannot delegate responsibility...

Only authority...

Fact is the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and solely responsible for decisions made regarding the US military.

No one ever "takes over" as Commander in Chief - he can ask for and consider or disregard the counsel of every Cabinet Member and General (or Admiral) as he sees fit with absolutely zero understanding of strategy, tactics and zero experience leading troops and there is absolutely no recourse other than to follow his orders.

Just like a Sheriff is elected might have zero LEO experience has access to people who do.

They don't; however, "take over".

It is a problem with our system that there are very few qualifications required for elected office other than age...citizenship and of course popularity. Sad really... I think military service should be added to the POTUS qualifications.

About time. Now if you'd only get rid of judicial elections too, you might be getting somewhere. Officers of the law should not be elected under any circumstances.

Should be interesting I suppose. Delaware State Constitution states the following about the duties of a sheriff:

...the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.

Conservator of the peace is a common law definition and is expressed as thus: "a public official authorized to conserve and maintain the public peace."

Here is the thing though, it is the States' right and duty to define the overall scope of the Office of Sheriff. If is is broad, then the counties themselves have the right to define that scope. The above definition gives an implicit tell that a Sheriff in Delaware is authorized under the Constitution to perform basic law enforcement duties to be able to conserve the peace; which would include the authority to arrest or act as a police officer does.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
About time. Now if you'd only get rid of judicial elections too, you might be getting somewhere. Officers of the law should not be elected under any circumstances.

Right so you want the whole judicial arm of State governments to be "appointed" or, more likely, non-appointed government bureaucrats? Accountability to the People is essential; you want it taken away?